A different theory on the cause of global warming. - Political Forum

Gumbercules · 03-06-2007, 05:53 PM

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Quote:

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Quote:

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

Interesting stuff.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-07-2007, 01:11 AM

It is an interesting read. There was some disagreement with this thory in the article as well.

Quote:

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

Gumbercules · 03-07-2007, 08:34 AM

Yeah, but I like to see disagreement in the scientific community. Especially on something like global warming where you have people advocating that we need to spend enormous amounts of money and drastically alter our lifestyle to fix a problem that we may not even have any control over in the first place.

Otter · 03-07-2007, 04:04 PM

So, how certian do you need to be before you would change your lifestyle to fix the problem? 55%?, 75%, 99%? There will always be scientific disagreement- that's how science works. At what hypothetical point do we decide that there is 'enough evidence'?

sarukun · 03-07-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

So, how certian do you need to be before you would change your lifestyle to fix the problem? 55%?, 75%, 99%? There will always be scientific disagreement- that's how science works. At what hypothetical point do we decide that there is 'enough evidence'?

At this point, we need to not only start figuring out how to reduce emissions, but also how to adapt a lot of things in our lives dependant on the climate to warmer temperatures.

I still don't understand why we haven't replaced every damned coal plant in the country with clean-burning coal. It's the dumbest crap in history.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-07-2007, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumbercules

Yeah, but I like to see disagreement in the scientific community. Especially on something like global warming where you have people advocating that we need to spend enormous amounts of money and drastically alter our lifestyle to fix a problem that we may not even have any control over in the first place.

I agree. I think that for any kind of issue there should be disagreement. While I don't agree with this person, and I think that humanity is in extreme danger, I can nonetheless appreciate that we do need naysayers and disagreement for any issue.

Otter · 03-09-2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarukun

At this point, we need to not only start figuring out how to reduce emissions, but also how to adapt a lot of things in our lives dependant on the climate to warmer temperatures.

I still don't understand why we haven't replaced every damned coal plant in the country with clean-burning coal. It's the dumbest crap in history.

Well, my point was that if we wait until there is complete scientific agreement before taking any action, we will never do anything.

It appears to me that the preponderance of the evidence supports a significant human contribution in global climate change, however the costs of doing something about it are high (and in the present), and the cost of *not* doing something, while very probably much higher, are in the future- some so much so that they will fall on future generations, rather than ours (ie will be paid by someone else). With most corporations not looking much beyond the next quarter, the chances that we'll find it 'economical' to change are slim.

Ygorl · 03-09-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarukun

At this point, we need to not only start figuring out how to reduce emissions, but also how to adapt a lot of things in our lives dependant on the climate to warmer temperatures.

I still don't understand why we haven't replaced every damned coal plant in the country with clean-burning coal. It's the dumbest crap in history.

Yes, you're right it IS.

Not because its making our planet warmer either.

Because it's poisoning our enviroment. Where do we think fish are acquiring all of the higher mercury levels in their tissues from ?

Ygorl · 03-09-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

Well, my point was that if we wait until there is complete scientific agreement before taking any action, we will never do anything.

It appears to me that the preponderance of the evidence supports a significant human contribution in global climate change, however the costs of doing something about it are high (and in the present), and the cost of *not* doing something, while very probably much higher, are in the future- some so much so that they will fall on future generations, rather than ours (ie will be paid by someone else). With most corporations not looking much beyond the next quarter, the chances that we'll find it 'economical' to change are slim.

So, give us some ideas. What would you have us do ? All start riding bikes and skateboards or rollerblades to work ?

How will the world ship goods to each other ? Old fashioned sailboat and horse and buggy ?

I'm all for cutting our dependance on oil. Since we PAY people in the world that mean to destroy us FOR it.

But, we have to be real. Lets hear some solutions. Not to solve "global warming" but to solve us paying and funding our own destruction.

Results might be similar but the causes are a bit different. The solution(s) might be the same, or at least very similar ?

Ygorl · 03-09-2007, 02:08 PM

Let me clarify the last sentence (above post) for us.

Results might be similar but the causes are a bit different. The solution(s) might be the same, or at least very similar ?

The "results" I'm referring to would be our destruction from:

A. Al Gores theory of global warming.

Or

B. Countries or societies that hate, and want to kill or destroy us.

Different causes.

The solutions I'm referring to would be to find better ways to move ourselves and our goods around Earth.

If we're not burning gas

A. We won't be making Al Gores global warming get any worse.

And/or

B. We won't be paying people that mean to kill us for a resource that they, just happened to be sitting on.

Hope that helps :-)